[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers
Hi all, I'm glad we're now moving our conversation on in new directions, and I'ld like to suggest one which I hope will be productive. The discussion on this list often seems to me be based on the assumption that scholarly publishers are a wholly negative force in the open access world, and a community to be avoided/undermined/mistrusted at all costs. This feels unwarranted to me - and perhaps other publishers on this list who are not so audacious as to stick their heads over the parapet. So, knowing that positive messages are powerful ways to influence: what positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized? With kind wishes, Alicia Dr Alicia Wise Director of Universal Access Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com I Twitter: @wisealic From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of CHARLES OPPENHEIM Sent: 11 May 2012 09:27 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] UK Defamation Bill and OA This has just been published - see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/1300 5.pdf. Clause 6 gives special protection against defamation actions to peer reviewed scholarly articles (the first time peer review has figured in a piece of legislation??). This is something that scholarly publishers will no doubt pick up on as an argument against unrefereed green OA. Charles Professor Charles Oppenheim Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales). ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers
Alicia, Some publishers are often criticised, you're right, and I agree that they shouldn't be for just being an established scholarly publisher. And I don't think they are as often as you perhaps assume. It is the policies and business models that are criticised rather than the publishers per se. And you may have noticed that the scientific community is often criticised as well, for moaning and then doing what is not consistent with what they are moaning about, to put it crudely. I think that if a publisher, Elsevier, say, were to make all the journal material available with delayed open access (CC-BY, fully re-usable and mine-able) after a reasonable embargo period of a year (possibly 2 years in certain slow-moving areas), that publisher might lose a few reprint sales, but gain a fair amount of kudos as well. Of course it isn't the same as immediate OA, but it would be an important step in the right direction. Would you consider advising your corporate masters to do just that? Anyway, there will be plenty of other steps in the right direction one can think of, but this is the one that springs to mind immediately. It really is the policies, not the publisher per se, though you will agree with me that it is perhaps understandable that some specific policies are commonly identified with specific publishers, and it is the publishers who make the policies, of course. Best, Jan On 11 May 2012, at 10:55, David Prosser wrote: Hi Alica There are a number of good examples. In gold OA we have the example of PLoS, BMC, Hindawi, and hundreds of other publishers who are showing the OA gold is a sustainable model. In hybrid, we have publishers such as Springer who a) make obvious papers where the author has paid a publication fee to make the paper OA and b) publish the OA papers as CC-BY rather than retaining restrictive copyright licenses. (On the flip side we have examples of publishers who have taken payment under hybrid models and then have had to be chased to make the papers freely available - those publishers really need to get their processes in order). In green, we have many, many good examples of clear and unrestrictive policies that allow authors to self-archive. Particularly un-welcome are those publishers who put in place complex restrictions, or whose policies place authors in conflict with funder or institutional mandates. I think we have wonderful examples of a wide range of publishers who have embraced open access (in both its forms) and I don't believe that many of us feel that publishers are exclusively a negative force in open access. Of course, some specific publishers have tried to be a negative force - those that hire expensive PR lobbyists and paint open access as 'junk science' for example. But thankfully such publishers are few and far between. Best wishes David On 11 May 2012, at 10:19, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote: Hi all, I’m glad we’re now moving our conversation on in new directions, and I’ld like to suggest one which I hope will be productive. The discussion on this list often seems to me be based on the assumption that scholarly publishers are a wholly negative force in the open access world, and a community to be avoided/undermined/mistrusted at all costs. This feels unwarranted to me – and perhaps other publishers on this list who are not so audacious as to stick their heads over the parapet. So, knowing that positive messages are powerful ways to influence: what positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized? With kind wishes, Alicia Dr Alicia Wise Director of Universal Access Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com I Twitter: @wisealic From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of CHARLES OPPENHEIM Sent: 11 May 2012 09:27 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] UK Defamation Bill and OA This has just been published - see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/13005.pdf. Clause 6 gives special protection against defamation actions to peer reviewed scholarly articles (the first time peer review has figured in a piece of legislation??). This is something that scholarly publishers will no doubt pick up on as an argument against unrefereed green OA. Charles Professor Charles Oppenheim Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales). ATT1..txt ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org
[GOAL] Re: UK Defamation Bill and OA
There was a quite extraordinary case of an author suing Joseph Weiler for defamation for allowing a negative review to be published in a European Law journal that he edits. The review was somewhat negative about the book but I have seen much worse. Weiler is at the very top of his field and he was being sued by an Israeli academic with a solid enough reputation -- now much damaged by the fact that she brought such an absurd case. She lost conclusively with costs against her. See Weiler's note after the judgement http://www.ejiltalk.org/in-the-dock-in-paris-–-the-judgment-by-joseph-weiler-2/ Adam On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:56 AM, David Smith david.sm...@cabi.org wrote: In singling out peer reviewed scholarly articles, it would also seem to imply no additional protection for material in scholarly books or other longer form content. It does raise an interesting question as to whether somebody could go after a pre-print even if it was in a published journal. Or whether a paper in review has any form of protection – only a problem if you’ve made it public (via a repository) first I guess. Are there any defamation cases that pertain to published literature? The only thing I can think of that comes close is the libel case by the British Association of Chiropractors against the author Simon Singh ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8621880.stm) but that was against an article/blog in the Guardian. ** ** David ** ** ** ** *Dr David Smith* Head of Innovation, Plantwise Knowledge Bank CABI Head Office Nosworthy Way Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8DE UK Visit us at: www.cabi.org ** ** *CABI improves people's lives worldwide by providing * *information and applying scientific expertise to solve * *problems in agriculture and the environment* ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On Behalf Of *CHARLES OPPENHEIM *Sent:* 11 May 2012 09:27 *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) *Subject:* [GOAL] UK Defamation Bill and OA ** ** This has just been published - see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/13005.pdf. Clause 6 gives special protection against defamation actions to peer reviewed scholarly articles (the first time peer review has figured in a piece of legislation??). This is something that scholarly publishers will no doubt pick up on as an argument against unrefereed green OA. ** ** Charles Professor Charles Oppenheim ** ** ** ** P Think Green - don't print this email unless you really need to** ** The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited. Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised to undertake your own anti-virus precautions. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at c...@cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 832111 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it. CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071... ** ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Adam Hodgkin www.exacteditions.com Italian: +39 3460964211 skype name: adam.hodgkin ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] A few Religious Studies articles showing up in SAGE Open open access “mega journal”; reviewers being solicited
Greetings. I have just updated my blog http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com/ for your interest. A few Religious Studies articles showing up in SAGE Open open access “mega journal”; reviewers being solicited http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/a-few-religious-studies-articles-showing-up-in-sage-open-open-access-mega-journal-reviewers-being-solicited/ The other day I received an email from a librarian colleague who is also a scholar in New Testament. He considers himself an “under-employed Ph.D.,” by which I gather means having the academic credentials but not a full teaching position. I don’t know the circumstances of his situation, but I do know he is not alone. Professorships in Biblical Studies are notoriously difficult to come by. His email was interesting on a number of levels. He was asking, as someone who is trying to establish himself “as a competent scholar,” why he should consider open access instead of trying to get his articles accepted in “well-known and prestigious journal[s].” He was also curious about copyright issues with open access. These are important questions that I want to follow-up with in a subsequent post. In this post, however, I want to write about the specific situation that prompted his questions. A couple of weeks ago he received an unsolicited invitation from SAGE Publications to be a reviewer for their new open access journal, SAGE Open. He had never heard of SAGE Open. He wanted to know what this was all about. As always, your comments (posted to the post) are welcome. Gary F. Daught Omega Alpha | Open Access http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com oa.openaccess @ gmail.com___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] UK Defamation Bill and OA
This has just been published -see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/13005.p df.  Clause 6 gives special protection against defamation actions to peer reviewed scholarly articles (the first time peer review has figured in a piece of legislation??). This is something that scholarly publishers will no doubt pick up on as an argument against unrefereed green OA. Charles Professor Charles Oppenheim [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: UK Defamation Bill and OA
There was a quite extraordinary case of an author suing Joseph Weiler for defamation for allowing a negative review to be published in a European Law journal that he edits. The review was somewhat negative about the book but I have seen much worse. Weiler is at the very top of his field and he was being sued by an Israeli academic with a solid enough reputation -- now much damaged by the fact that she brought such an absurd case. She lost conclusively with costs against her. See Weiler's note after the judgement http://www.ejiltalk.org/in-the-dock-in-paris-â-the-judgment-by-joseph-weiler-2/ Adam On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:56 AM, David Smith david.sm...@cabi.org wrote: In singling out peer reviewed scholarly articles, it would also seem to imply no additional protection for material in scholarly books or other longer form content. It does raise an interesting question as to whether somebody could go after a pre-print even if it was in a published journal. Or whether a paper in review has any form of protection â only a problem if youâve made it public (via a repository) first I guess. Are there any defamation cases that pertain to published literature? The only thing I can think of that comes close is the libel case by the British Association of Chiropractors against the author Simon Singh (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8621880.stm) but that was against an article/blog in the Guardian.  David   Dr David Smith Head of Innovation, Plantwise Knowledge Bank CABI Head Office Nosworthy Way Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8DE UK Visit us at: www.cabi.org  CABI improves people's lives worldwide by providing information and applying scientific expertise to solve problems in agriculture and the environment       From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of CHARLES OPPENHEIM Sent: 11 May 2012 09:27 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] UK Defamation Bill and OA  This has just been published -see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/13005.p df.  Clause 6 gives special protection against defamation actions to peer reviewed scholarly articles (the first time peer review has figured in a piece of legislation??). This is something that scholarly publishers will no doubt pick up on as an argument against unrefereed green OA.  Charles Professor Charles Oppenheim   P Think Green - don't print this email unless you really need to The information contained in this e-mail and any files transmitted with it is confidential and is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited. Whilst CAB International trading as CABI takes steps to prevent the transmission of viruses via e-mail, we cannot guarantee that any e-mail or attachment is free from computer viruses and you are strongly advised to undertake your own anti-virus precautions. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail at c...@cabi.org or by telephone on +44 (0)1491 832111 and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it. CABI is an International Organization recognised by the UK Government under Statutory Instrument 1982 No. 1071... ** ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Adam Hodgkin www.exacteditions.com Italian: +39 3460964211 skype name: adam.hodgkin [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers
Good morning! Thinking positively, I would recommend the following change in one clause of the What rights do I retain as a journal author*? stated in Elsevier's portal, which says the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your personal or institutional website or server for scholarly purposes*, incorporating the complete citation and with a link to the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the article (but not in subject-oriented or centralized repositories or institutional repositories with mandates for systematic postings unless there is a specific agreement with the publisher. External link Click here for further information); By this one: the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your personal, institutional website, subject-oriented or centralized repositories or institutional repositories or server for scholarly purposes, incorporating the complete citation and with a link to the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the article I think this could be something to be encouraged, celebrated and recognized! Reme Reme Melero CientÃfico Titular CSIC IATA Avda Agustin Escardino 7, 46980 Paterna, Valencia Tel 963900022 ext 3121 www.accesoabierto.net El 11/05/2012 11:19, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) escribió: Hi all,  Iâm glad weâre now moving our conversation on in new directions, and Iâld like to suggest one which I hope will be productive. The discussion on this list often seems to me be based on the assumption that scholarly publishers are a wholly negative force in the open access world, and a community to be avoided/undermined/mistrusted at all costs. This feels unwarranted to me â and perhaps other publishers on this list who are not so audacious as to stick their heads over the parapet. So, knowing that positive messages are powerful ways to influence: what positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized?   With kind wishes,  Alicia   Dr Alicia Wise Director of Universal Access Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com I Twitter: @wisealic     From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of CHARLES OPPENHEIM Sent: 11 May 2012 09:27 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] UK Defamation Bill and OA  This has just been published -see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/13005.p df.  Clause 6 gives special protection against defamation actions to peer reviewed scholarly articles (the first time peer review has figured in a piece of legislation??). This is something that scholarly publishers will no doubt pick up on as an argument against unrefereed green OA.  Charles Professor Charles Oppenheim   Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, O xford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales). ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Reme Melero CientÃfico Titular CSIC IATA Avda Agustin Escardino 7, 46980 Paterna, Valencia Tel 963900022 ext 3121 www.accesoabierto.net [ Part 1.2.2, Image/GIF (Name: externalLink_3.gif) 85 bytes. ] [ Unable to print this part. ] [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Elsevier's query re: positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized
**Cross-Posted** El 11/05/2012 11:19, Wise, Alicia (Elsevier) asked: [W]hat positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized?   Dr Alicia Wise Director of Universal Access Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com I Twitter: @wisealic On 2012-05-11, at 6:13 AM, Reme Melero wrote: I would recommend the following change in one clause of the What rights do I retain as a journal author*? stated in Elsevier's portal, which says the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your personal or institutional website or server for scholarly purposes*, incorporating the complete citation and with a link to the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the article (but not in subject-oriented or centralized repositories or institutional repositories with mandates for systematic postings unless there is a specific agreement with the publisher. externalLink_3.gifClick here for further information); By this one: the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your personal, institutional website, subject-oriented or centralized repositories or institutional repositories or server for scholarly purposes, incorporating the complete citation and with a link to the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the article I think this could be something to be encouraged, celebrated and recognized! That would be fine. Or even this simpler one would be fine: the right to post a revised personal version of the text of the final journal article (to reflect changes made in the peer review process) on your personal, institutional website or institutional repositories or server for scholarly purposes, incorporating the complete citation and with a link to the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the article The metadata and link can be harvested from the institutional repositories by institution-external repositories or search services, and the shameful, cynical, self-serving and incoherent clause about mandates  for systematic postings  (you may post if you wish but not if you must), which attempts to take it all back, is dropped. That clause -- added when Elsevier realized that Green Gratis OA mandates were catching on -- is a paradigmatic example of the publisher FUD and double-talk that Andrew Adams and others were referring to on GOAL. Dropping it would be a great cause for encouragement, celebration and recognition, and would put Elsevier irreversibly on the side of the angels. Stevan Harnad [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] OA and scholarly publishers
Many thanks to Alicia Wise for starting a new conversation thread. Â Letâs recall that Aliciaâs question was, âwhat positive things are established scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized?â Â I am sure that Elsevier is keen to hear any suggestions for things it can do to progress OA, but letâs not forget the other publishers too: Â What are they doing right, and what could they do better? Â And wouldnât it be great if other publishers started to share their thoughts with us too? Surely it is time for the research community to enter into a public dialogue with publishers? Who knows what benefits might follow? Â Richard Poynder GOAL Moderator [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: A few Religious Studies articles showing up in SAGE Open open access “mega journal”; reviewers being solicited
It seems that Sage Open is almost too reasonably priced for what they offer ⦠but I am a science librarian who doesnât know much about the soft sciences/humanities publishing. This from: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsProdDesc.nav?prodId=Journal202037#tabview=title  1. Quick review and decision times for authors 2. Speedy, continuous-publication online format 3. Global distribution of your research via SAGE Journals Online, including enhanced online features such as: public usage metrics, comments features, subject categories, and article ranking and recommendations 1. Professional copyediting and typesetting of your article will ensure quality 2. $395 introductory author acceptance fee (discounted from the regular price of $695)   Dana L. Roth Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 dzr...@library.caltech.edu http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm  From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Omega Alpha Open Access Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 8:34 AM To: goal@eprints.org; sparc-oafo...@arl.org; Caroline Porter Subject: [GOAL] A few Religious Studies articles showing up in SAGE Open open access âmega journalâ; reviewers being solicited  Greetings. I have just updated my blog http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com/ for your interest.  A few Religious Studies articles showing up in SAGE Open open access âmega journalâ; reviewers being solicited http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/a-few-religious-studies-articles- showing-up-in-sage-open-open-access-mega-journal-reviewers-being-solicited/  The other day I received an email from a librarian colleague who is also a scholar in New Testament. He considers himself an âunder-employed Ph.D.,â by which I gather means having the academic credentials but not a full teaching position. I donât know the circumstances of his situation, but I do know he is not alone. Professorships in Biblical Studies are notoriously difficult to come by.  His email was interesting on a number of levels. He was asking, as someone who is trying to establish himself âas a competent scholar,â why he should consider open access instead of trying to get his articles accepted in âwell-known and prestigious journal[s].â He was also curious about copyright issues with open access.  These are important questions that I want to follow-up with in a subsequent post. In this post, however, I want to write about the specific situation that prompted his questions. A couple of weeks ago he received an unsolicited invitation from SAGE Publications to be a reviewer for their new open access journal, SAGE Open. He had never heard of SAGE Open. He wanted to know what this was all about.  As always, your comments (posted to the post) are welcome.  Gary F. Daught Omega Alpha | Open Access http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com oa.openaccess @ gmail.com [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
